Bert Bos wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2005 16:11, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>div.content { editable: one; }
>>div.content > p { editable: one-or-more; }
>>div.content > img { editable: zero-or-more; }
>>div.content > p em,
>>div.content > p strong,
>>div.content > p img { editable: zero-or-more; }
>
> You're reading much more into it than I meant.
>
> If div.content is editable, its content is game: you can change the
> content in any way you like. The other rules in your example thus have
> no effect.
Oh ok, thanks for clarifying this. In this case it's not powerful enough
for the sort of needs that I have in mind. The reason I'm interested is
because I think that defining how something may be edited with simple
rules based on selectors is a nice way of creating a simple editor. It's
not stylistic, but it can use CSS selectors or XPath.
> I think specifying the syntax of an element's content is out of scope.
> You can edit the content or you cannot, that's it. The syntax is
> implicitly restricted in some way already, because the result after
> editing should be a valid document.
Yes, but if you look at what people are doing out there with HTML in
textareas you'll see that they restrict the content to much less than
what could be valid, which I think is an interesting use case. Also,
generic XML editing inside the browser is of high value since you can
then edit documents with different semantics that the server can then do
other useful things with. XForms can do that, but I'm interested in any
option that doesn't send the vendors running away screaming... Also
XForms is married to XML Schema, which is the least useful option you
can think of (as well as the hardest to implement by two or three orders
of magnitude) for document edition.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/